szgyula

Here is the reference: http://blakjak.org/wbf_cnbk.htm It is by by Grattan Endicott, WBFLC Secretary. Basically there is standard (6 cards), undisciplined (i.e. bad six card suit or often fair five card suit acceptable) or random (anything is acceptable) versions of the weak 2M. Thus, this 2D multi is not a brown sticker. I still take it to the regulating authority as they have a tendency to call any system "red" that has a randomness in the system, i.e. the player may or may not bid X with a certain hand in a certain situation. Their argument is that there is not true "random" choice, which leads to implicit partnership agreements (even if the pair can not clearly define it), which is not disclosed. They do not want to have it in low level games. But the question here would be different: "Do they always open a KJTxx with 5332 distribution and 4HCP in the first seat, green over red with 2D?" If yes, no problem. If not, it is red (still playable at many levels). Anyway, the brown sticker issue is closed, it is not a BSC in the WBF sense.

As I see, the only information was the alert (correct) and the partnership agreement, Brozel. This was later supported by the CC, which is most of the time the deciding factor for TD's if the partners disagree on what they play. Thus, the Brozel explanation was correct. What the other player thought is irrelevant. There was no MI so there is no infraction, no adjustment. One can make a slight case for not alerting the 3D, but I do not think it should be alerted. True, there is P as an option but a five card in partner's suit is more than enough to opt for the raise. The 3H probably shows some extra strength and a better H than D (e.g. 65). I still find it normal. The 2D bid was a biddign error, but that's part of the game...

I agree. I revisit the statement: He could have cleared the MI on my side and explain to the player that he has to correct the information NOW (to me). I do not see how this information can legally cross the screen. Thus, the TD can not warn my partner that my bid was based on MI and my partner is not allowed to reevaluate his assumptions about my hand. He should act on the assumption that my X of the D was for penalty, holding D's, no matter what happens. He should asusme that the TD call was simply to fix a typo in the Bridgemate and had nothing to do with the party. Agreed? I just got a new argument from the TD, by the way: He argues that after the first TD call, the MI was cleared so it can not possibly affect the play. Thus, all errors after the first TD call are "unrelated". He also claims that with double dummy -3 is pretty straightforward so to calculate the correction, -500 was used. I.e. +690-500 (closed room, actual score) vs. +690+180, i.e. 5 IMP vs. 13IMP. The self inflicted damage is 8IMP, which is on top of the 1IMP (3NT+3 in closed room vs. 3NT+2 assigned for us).

1 North is only required to give information about the agreements they have for a bid. He is not required to speculate what the partner thinks. In fact, he should probably not draw attention to the fact that (s)he is not sure if partner knows about the strong club. If OS is interested, they can ask. North is not obliged to guess. 2 If 2♦ is natural, no alert. If not, alert. South must act within the agreed system, which has 2♣ natural so 2♦ natural. I thibnk the bottom line is "do not indicate that you misbid".

I would still consider MI in that case. When N asked "It's not forcing?", the opponent must answer. No matter how silly the question is. Thus, there must be a yes or no to THAT QUESTION. The answer given starts with "Sorry, etc.", which to me implies that the answer is "It is forcing but it is not game forcing". I would have interpreted the answer this way. The next question: Is this Stayman not forcing? That depends on the partnership. It may very well be forcing. In that case, nothing illegal happened. The opps were given the corrent information. No player is forced to bid, even after a forcing bid from partner. The classic case: Is it legal to pass an absolute force 2C opening? We never did this but we had a 2C (abs. force) - 2D (0-3 HCP) - p sequence once. Now if the agreement is actually "not forcing and not a game force", than the story looks different. Than there was MI and the player can argue that he was sure he would get a second chance to bid so there is damage...

I beg to disagree on the brown sticker issue. The WBL Systems policy has this (and Hungary has the exact same rule): "The following conventions or treatments are categorised as ‘Brown Sticker’: a)Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND ii)does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.) EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types containing 16 high card points or mre, or with equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below." The 2D opening is weak (below average strength), is 2C through 3S and does not promise 4 cards in a known suit. Thus, for it not to be a brown sticker, it must be " two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major" (or strong). For this rule to have any menaing, there must be an objective definition of "weak two in a major". Otherwise a pair playing in fact CRO preempt can say that "this is how we define weak two in hearts". The TD (or regulatin authority) must be able to say that "no, this is not a weak two in either majors", otherwise the regulation is unenforcable. My claim was that weak two has 6 cards or exceptionally good 5 cards. An exceptionally weak 7 card is also allowed. Anything else is not a weak two. As for the MI and screens: The MI, when screens are in use, often affects both sides. Even if this is discovered and the player corrects the MI, he can not communicate this correction over the screen. Even the TD can not tell the NOS player on the other side that there was a MI as that would be UI per laws. This hand is a prime example of this situation. East was not told that there was a MI on our side, thus, he misinterpreted my bid. Were he told about this, he could have taken my CQ with his CA (interpreting my X as takeout, i.e. majors) and lead HT, showing his SA. That would be 2C, DA+Druff, 3H and 1S tricks for down 4, 800. I do not see a way to inform him about the situation. Without screens it is trivial as the OS can clear the MI and both NOS players can legally reinterpret the bids accordingly.

The TD was called after the opening lead so Law 21 does not apply. The TD could have cleared the MI and warn both NOS players. He did not. Screen regulations do not have anything relevant to the case. The OS player could have noticed the MI after the TD was called and I was complaining about no alert and too many diamonds in dummy. In that case he must have corrected the MI. This would not have helped much as the key points were my incorrect bid (based on MI) and my partner misinterpreting my bid, not knowing that I was given MI. What would have helped is warning my partner that I was given MI before I doubled the 2D. This brings up the issue of authorized information: I do not see a way to inform my partner about the MI. Strictly interpreting Law 16, even the TD can not warn him (and he can not use that info if TD gives it). No, I was not given a correct explanation, even after the TD call. Worse: My partner did not know that I was given MI, thus, he did not even know that his interpretation of my bid is WRONG. We have a specific defense against multi (with and without the strong options). I just had a discussion with my partner and he correctly pointed out that our defense convention can easily show "the other major". Me not using those bids made him think that I do not have anything of high value in the majors... Let me go back to the brown sticker issue: All "old" literature definitions had "six card suit" as a requirement. "Modern" literature allows a strong 5 card suit (KQJxx or better) and also allows 7 cards. No definition I saw so far allows a weak-2 with KJT62 with a 5332 distribution. The obvious law question is: Just what IS a weak-2? The brown sticker definition makes a special excemption for weak-2 (in either suit). To be usable, there must be a definition of a "weak-2 in either major". I agree that there is no problem opening this hand with 2S, as it shows a 4 card specific suit. 2D does not show a specific suit so it must be a weak-2 in either major for it to be "non brown sticker". The ACBL yellow card has this definition: "Weak two-bids show a six-card suit of reasonable quality and 5-11 HCP. On rare occasions it may be a very good five-card suit. It is possible to open a weak two with a poor seven-card suit (not good enough to open with at the three level)."

The mini-multi, showing a weak two is not brown sticker. On the other hand, in the actual case the hand is 4HCP, FIVE CARD major without a side suit. I do not think it qualifies as a weak-2. Thus, the mini-multi is NOT brown sticker but this is not what the pair seems to be playing. I would argue that the player passing with at least two in both majors knew about the 5 card possibility (i.e. implicit partnership agreement). Thus, what they play IS brown sticker. With D lead, west still makes 11 tricks. 5C, 1D (taking the second round with A), 3H and finally two in S exiting in S in trick 11 and now N must play S...

The hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s87hkj73dkqj73ct7&w=sq95haq86da85ckq2&n=skjt62h542d42c965&e=sa43ht9dt96caj843&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2dppdppp&p=d9djdad2ckc5c3c7cqc6c4ctd5d4dtdqs7sqsksacad7c2c9dkd8h2d6s8s5sts3sjs4h3s9s6h9h7h6s2hthjh8h4c8hkhahqh5cj]399|300[/hv] [HV added later, the play may not be 100% correct but has the key elements] N KJT62.542.42.965 E:A43.T9.T96.AJ843 S:87.KJ73.KQJ73.T7 W:Q95.AQ86.A85.KQ2 Vul. EW, dealer N. The auction went 2D-p-p-X-p-p-p. Screens were in use. N alerted E and explain "mini multi". S did not alert W. After the opening lead W call the TD and indicated (seeing 5 diamonds from S) that something is wrong. The TD told us to continue to play. The lead was D (to A), CK, CQ followed by a neutral lead. S from dummy, Q, K and A. H was not lead and as a consequence, 2Dx= was the table result for 180. After the game, TD was called back. The following ruling was made: 1. There was clear MI. S should have alerted W that it is not a weak2 but mini multi. 2. 3N+2 was the adjusted score. 3. Then TD argued that the defense in 2Dx was not optimal, the contract should go down. This is a SEOWG so 12C1b applies. The difference between +180 (2Dx=) and -100 (2Dx-1) is self inflicted so 7IMP-s are subtracted from the NOS score. The result for other tables was 3N mostly, with results split evenly between +1, +2 and +3. This is Hungary, which has the 2007 rules without modifications. The main issue: W assumed that 2D is natural (no alert). Thus, I (I was west) tried a takeout double to find a H fit or to play NT. EW has an agreed defense for multi: 2H and 2S is a takeout with shortness in the suit bid, 2N is a 1N opening with stoppers, X shows diamond holding. E interpreted the X as W having Ds. It is important to note the X is typically a not very strong hand, i.e. normally not above opening strength. It has a "partner, I have minors, they have the upper hand, leave them alone" meaning. This can be made with weak hands as it is rare that the opponents can play D. E opened with D as he assumed that opponents are playing my suit. By the time he was to lead again, he saw SQ, DA, CK and CQ from me. 11HCP. The bid (showing diamonds and weak to opening strength) ruled out AQ in H (17 HCP). Thus, he tried (I think) C so I can ruff. As he marked me with trumps and not too much strength, he misunderstood the KQ play from me. He also misunderstood the SQ signal. Our signaling depends on the situation. He simply read it as attitude (thus, he was not afraid to play the A) while it was suit preference asking for H... Now the questions: 1. Is this SEOWG? In my opinion it is neither serious nor unrelated to the infraction. 2. If you assume for a moment that it is: Is this calculation correct? Can you rule that contract B is assigned but mistakes in contract A are calculated? 3. Looking at the hand, 3N+2 is automatic for a S lead (happened at all tables but one) as there are 2S, 3H, 1D and 5C tricks. Making a mistake in defense is easy (this is the lowest division of the national championship, where absolute beginners play). Thus, I would think about weighting the +3. The TD ruling on this was that +2 is the double dummy score and +3 is a defense error so NOS is not entitled to it. 4. As the play ended with a claim, it was not discovered: N opened 2D mini-multi with a five card suit. This is brown sticker (weak opening, not indication a minimum 4 suit and not a "weak two in either major with possible strong options"). If this was not discovered during the event but only during the appeal (in progress), what are the options for the TD? Yellow and Red systems and Brown conventions are banned in this event. 5. A more generic question: How should banned treatments be dealt with? How do you handle this in other countries? I tried this once and I got as far as the opponents got a 1VP penalty for not having a CC during the second time we had to play (in the playoffs).

Agreed. There is still a slight difference, though: Both are small deviations from the system (I think the typical rule is more than a Q and more than 1 in length). Both are intentional. In my mind "tactical bid" wants to confuse the opponents more than the partner. Deviation does not necessarily include this motive, the intention may be completely different. One example would be a situation that the agreed system has no correct bid for and one chooses less misleading bid. But I agree "tactical bid" should be deprecated.

Just a clarification: "Tactical bid" was meant as a mini-psych, i.e. a deviation from the agreed system that does not reach the level of a bona fide psych. Of course at one point certain tactical bids become implicit partnership agreements and must be disclosed.

Actually, not quite correct: If it is explicitly part of the system and the opponents are alerted, it is no longer a tactical bid. Indeed that is what happens. The short explanation is: "it promises a 3 card minor and it does not deny longer and/or better second minor". I.e. it is an explicit partnership agreement, not a tactical bid.

I think the counterargument as follows: Nobody can choose truly randomly between bids. Thus, there is an "implicit agreement" that you can not disclose. I do not agree but this is one argument I heard. To be honest, I can think of millions of borderline situations where I sometimes bid A, sometimes bid B with the exact same hand. E.g. there is a very thin line between the 2S and 1S, especially in 3rd seat. This is even "worse" than a truly random choice as there IS an implicit agreement that you cannot really explain.

Recently, somebody suggested that in certain situation it is beneficial to allow multiple bids for a certain hand and select one randomly. An example would be to pick randomly the 1 minor opening for (roughly) equal minor suits (e.g. 3-3). The national regulating body quickly declared that any system having this element can not be natural (green), i.e. this convention makes the system red. This also implies that this system can not be played in many tournaments. It is clear that they can make this ruling (and did). This post is simply asking for input about the practice in this regard in other countries. As a side issue, the minor openings were also regulated in a natural system: if you have to choose between the minor openings, you MUST choose the longer. A system that calls for opening 1D with a holding of AKQ.5432 in the minors is red. I also used to play a system where you could open 1C with minors like AQJx.Qxx, especially in the 3rd seat after two passes to ward off a C opening lead in 1NT (likely contract). This would also be a red system. How is this in other countries? Please do not bring in psych and tactical bids -- limit the discussion to the agreed (explicit or implicit) system. Please do not discuss the merits of these systems, concentrate on the legality of such systems.

As apparently this is apparently a solved issue, for those few who are interested, here is the application, provided as is: http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B05MWfFWIbveTGxqTlRDMHVrTjA Gyula DISCLAIMER: This software is illegal to use during a bridge competition. Thus, if you are from Hungary, you are explicitly asked not to download it and if you play in a bridge tournament in Hungary, do not use it. I personally have no issue with it but using it will be considered a serious disciplinary problem in Hungary. You have been warned.

Even at 16 boards you need 61 entries (20-0 is for an IMP difference of 60). You have 25 entries for the IMP scale, lines for the boards, etc. Isn't it crowded a bit on an A4 sheet? In Hungary we use double sided sheets for 32 boards and it was already crowded with the old IMP-VP scale. Anyway: http://woefulwabbit.com/wbf-vp/ generates the tables for you so we are back to the Android app issue.

That is interesting and it would be useful for the Android app: for 32 boards you have to print out 86 lines. How do you fit it on a page? In the good old days (25-0 to 15-15 scores) you only needed 16 lines. This is 5 times more and the scores are also longer (2+2 digits).

Honestly, I do not see the point. In fact I have the full table generated in the application (you need it for the 0.01 corrections) but I can not imagine a meaningful way to present it on an android screen. What would make sense is a WIndows application to produce the full tables. That would be trivial to do and I will probably do it. Is there enough interest in these? Can someone provide some place to put these where others can get them?

I could not find the right forum, but this seems to be "close enough". I wrote a very simple Android application that calculates the IMP to VP conversion for arbitrary number of boards. It does include the concavity correction. This was the good news. The bad news is that it is very spartan (you input the two IMPs and the number of boards and it shows the VPs). The question is: what should be the future of this app? I am happy to give it to anyone (free) but I do not want to invest a significant amount of work into making it "production quality". Thus, I am not sure it will be anywhere close to Play Store requirements anytime in the future. It also needs to be tested to make sure the calculation is correct (especially the concavity correction). Any thoughts? Gyula

Again: I am happy to accept than 2S from my partner was a bad idea and I am quite ready to accept the consequences. My only argument is that the infraction made it worse. I am only seeking compensation for that extra damage, nothing beyond that. Thus, I expected a ruling that makes an educated guess about the outcome of the 2N contract and assign that score. Nothing beyond that.

He needs 9-14 points to overcall with 6 spades in the direct position. Even with enough points, he may decide to "wait and see" if his hand is good to defend against some contracts. There is enough room to bid 2S. Keeping a 6 card suit secret may be beneficial.

It is very simple. Against strong NT, we, by partnership agreement, show only distributional hands. Against weak NT, we play natural bids. E.g. 1N-2C (direct) would show an unspecified 6+ suit over a strong 1NT, while it would be a natural club overcall over a weak 1NT opening, not dramatically different from a 1D-2C sequence. In the given situation, the 2S is a 5 card balancing bid over a weak 1N opening and a distributional hand over a strong NT (by partnership agreement). Look at the hand: knowing that S length can be only 5, the 2N is automatic with a good holding in opponents suit (H). BTW, this part was accepted at the table by the director. He did not investigate it deeper, but we had a CC showing the different defense treatment of 1NT opening based on 1NT opening style of the opponents. We also had used both styles during that evening before that that could have been checked.

I certainly agree with that principle, but in this situation the NOS was practically not aware of the infraction. E (declarer) received no MI and he was not aware of the MI on the other side of the screen. W (dummy) was not aware of the infraction until trick 5 or so when S was murmuring, refering to his partner, "he has at least 12 points, so..." at which point W became suspicious and after the play called the director to clarify the situation. During the play dummy (W) was not allowed to call the director (43A1a) and did not do so. Thus, declarer was not aware of the infraction until the play was over. E only became aware of the infraction late, when he was not in the position to do anything. But also see my comment about the gambling issue: Even if you rule gambling, the infraction made the result of gambling worse. To this extent, compensation should be made. Thus, mathematically you should award the expected result of 2N (if better than the actual table result). You may or may not include gambling in the justification, but the end result is the same.

Even if you accept it as gambling, there is one more point: The "punishment for gambling" is playing 2NT without infraction. The infraction made the gambling worse and FOR THIS PART correction should be made, which is the difference between gambling+infraction and gambling+no infraction. We end up with the expected outcome of 2N in a complicated way. Read the goal of adjustment, 12B1.

East, having all the correct information, knew that points are split roughly 20-20. Having a weak hand, he put (correctly) a significant strength to West (me). He definitly knew that I have more than opening strength. The fact that I did not bid, meant that I have either a balanced hand (not the case) or strength in opponents suit (which was the case). He knows that I do not have long minors, either. He decided to balance in the last seat and leave the decision to me (pass with spades, correct to NT with short spades). Due to the MI, I misinterpreted his bid as long spades and passed. I repeat: the meaning of his bid depends on the point range the opponents have for the 1NT. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_%28bridge%29. They have an example of T864.5.KQ65.JT94 to balance in a simmilar situation with a double. In this case the hand has less points but has a suit and we can not go beyond 2NT. We are in green, which also adds to the temptation. Scoring is MP. You can call it inferior, bad bridge, but gambling is too far, IMHO. I also repeat: The 2S of East is based on all the information available and he received no MI. He decided to balance with 2S, which (on his side of the screen) is a pass or correct to NT bid. Which would have resulted in a ~50% score (2H was made on some tables, went down on others, double dummy gives 2H=.